Where does it say in that article his parents gave him the gun to take?

well, they had the gun at home in a place where an eleven year old was able to get it with ease so either they gave it to him or were grossly negligent in not storing the gun properly so that an eleven year could not access it easily.

A man walked into northern Virginia's Sandy Hook Elementary School on Wednesday with a 2-by-4 printed with the words "High Powered Rifle" and was quickly subdued by a school resource officer, the sheriff's office said.

Christopher G. Johnson, 33, did not resist arrest and was attempting to deliver a message "related to school safety," said Maj. Scott Proctor of the Shenandoah Sheriff's Department.

There should be a full-time, armed police officer at every school in the country.

Uh, no. What a terrible idea. You want to put 1 officer, with 1 gun in a crowd of hundereds of kids? All it would take is a couple of them (more if younger) to subdue the officer and all of a sudden you've got kids with the officer's weapon. And god forbid the weapon ever get seperated from the officer on accident.

School shootings are tragic, but rare instances. but I'd say the odds go up higher if you've already put a gun in a school as defense. That's already half the equation for a disaster.

Exactly. Even if you had to build a secure vestibule room at the front of every school it could be done easily.

Put in bulletproof glass, double security door, cameras and even a metal detector.

If someone really wanted to get in, I suppose they could shoot out a side window, like in a classroom, but that would be much harder to be stealthy and I'd imagine there would be fewer casualties overall.

Uh, no. What a terrible idea. You want to put 1 officer, with 1 gun in a crowd of hundereds of kids? All it would take is a couple of them (more if younger) to subdue the officer and all of a sudden you've got kids with the officer's weapon. And god forbid the weapon ever get seperated from the officer on accident.

School shootings are tragic, but rare instances. but I'd say the odds go up higher if you've already put a gun in a school as defense. That's already half the equation for a disaster.

I don't think even HS kids are going to take a gun from a police officer who I'd arm with pepper spray, mace and a taser along with the gun. There are already many many local police officers in schools across the nation already. I don't know the literature but I'd guess there has never been an officer disarmed by kids at school.

We don't normally put officers in schools with young kids though. I'm not certain how much money it would cost to do that. However, we have guards in every bank yada so I'd like to hear more about this. Beefing security by way of securing the building to insulate the kids is a great idea as well.

I don't think even HS kids are going to take a gun from a police officer who I'd arm with pepper spray, mace and a taser along with the gun. There are already many many local police officers in schools across the nation already. I don't know the literature but I'd guess there has never been an officer disarmed by kids at school.

We don't normally put officers in schools with young kids though. I'm not certain how much money it would cost to do that. However, we have guards in every bank yada so I'd like to hear more about this. Beefing security by way of securing the building to insulate the kids is a great idea as well.

yea, a can't see a bunch of unarmed HS kids getting the drop on a cop. Not to mention the people that do these things aren't that bold, they put them selves in situation where people fear them, not where there is someone who can stop them.

Notice the similarities in batt-crazyness both perps in all of these crazy crimes have. Huh.....odd...so they are all crazy but we ignore that part of it. More Adderall for those types. Pump them full of speed and see what happens.

But how would they manage it during sports events?
I'm a ref and while I only have to go to the gym, I do sometimes have to go through the school to get to it.

Manwiththeplan;4910800 said:

That's not a real solution imo. How long before someone just waits in the parking lot and starts spraying once school kids are outside the door?

School security isn't the problem

Obviously there will never be the perfect solution. But this one thing seemed feasible to implement for all schools with relative ease. The idea being not to find an idea that completely eliminates all possible scenarios, but one that prevents particular attacks that are more common (the school day) than others (like sporting events where there would be more of an adult presence and less huge groups of kids than the regular day).

Of course you could come up with a bunch of contingency events (waiting outside to kill kids as they leave) but there will never be a solution for things like that beyond being aware of who is hanging around the school parking lot, etc.

“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

- Reagan

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Franklin

Harden the schools as discussed and allow qualified citizens to protect themselves and others from nut jobs.

I've seen this idea posted and each time it completely fails to ignore a couple of key facts.

1. The people who do this are crazy. To assume they'd be deterred by rational thought of potential harm to themselves while committing the act is pretty much saying that they aren't crazy and are capable of rational thought. They're nuts, out of touch, lack reasoning......whatever. That's why they do this stuff.

So the staff members would have guns, then what? How does that change this situation when a guy goes into the classroom? If he shoots the adult in the room first the gun is either on the floor or in the desk and there we are back to step one of being unarmed. Not to mention, where are teachers going to store these guns so they are both 100% inaccessible to students AT ALL TIMES yet also readily accessible to the teachers in a split second AT ALL TIMES? Are teachers going to be given holsters to pack around in elementary schools?

2. Arming staff assumes that the nut won't simply up the ante. Provided they even care that people are armed........most kill themselves, or at the very least prepare to be harmed themselves. You don't wear vests and military masks if you aren't expecting someone to return fire. The possibility of being shot is there as it is and it doesn't really deter one bit. Instead, they simply armor up so they can do the most damage possible before getting taken down.

Or maybe instead of guns they move onto other things like a truck with 50 gallon barrels of gasoline in the back. Drive one of those into the cafeteria at lunch? Guns aren't stopping that. Or hell, what if it doesn't even have gas and the just drives through the schoolyard at recess and runs over a bunch of kids?

These people don't care if there are guns around. They're hellbent on killing people. Pinning your hopes on guns being a deterrent is misguided because there are nuts out there who just do not care.

But lets pretend for a minute that it would deter people.

Since 1980 there have been 137 school shootings. Most have few losses of life. The three biggest have been Columbine, Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech.

Those 3 have accounted for 72 of the 297 deaths that have occurred in those shootings.

Scaling it back to the beginning of the year that Columbine happened as it was basically the first time we saw true evil and intent, it looks as though there have been 69 school shootings. It's kind of hard to count them up on that timeline. Also looks like 184 deaths.

3 of 69 shootings accounting for 72 of 184 deaths. These are the ones where the nuts don't care. So even if we take just these 3 and credit teaches who carry guns with being able to prevent the other 66, there are still 72 deaths. If teachers carrying guns can effectively reduce 95% of all shootings but the net effect is a 60% reduction in death, is that good enough? I don't think so.

I haven't looked it up either but I would bet a number of the incidents are simply some kid taking a gun to school because he thinks he's a hard *** and after things escalate to a certain extent, he shoots someone. Or maybe he went with the intent of shooting a specific kid and that was it. Those types of things happen before anyone even knows they happen. Teachers having guns may or may not stop those. What they might result in is the shooter getting shot, which would be the best case scenario compared to teachers opening fire and accidentally hitting other students.

Teachers carrying isn't the answer because there are people who don't care. They'll either go in anyway or step their game up. It's gonna take a number of different approaches. Like all things, there is no single answer. Since when has a problem like this ever been solved by the simple answer of arming teachers?

The real tragedies are premeditated and planned. The attackers have the element of surprise. They have the upper hand in every possible way, especially if they are bringing in multiple weapons and can put out more rounds than a teacher could.

And another question, what is the course of action for a teacher? They hear gunfire and leave the room, telling the kids to lock the door behind them? Now you have a room full of kids, no teacher present to direct them and no guarantee of stopping the shooter? How do you coordinate an evacuation of that classroom without an adult present? Class full of 5 and 6 six year old kids, nobody there to direct them and basically no way of communicating efficiently with them to provide directions?

Any school employee has absolutely no business with a firearm on school property. That is a plain stupid idea.

You want someone armed at a school, it should be someone hired strictly as school security. These people are highly trained for security and firearms.

Besides, in a situation like this, I wouldn't want a teacher abandoning my kids during this type of situation to go find a shooter somewhere on the property. I would want that teacher directing my kids on what action they should be taking.

I've seen this idea posted and each time it completely fails to ignore a couple of key facts.

1. The people who do this are crazy. To assume they'd be deterred by rational thought of potential harm to themselves while committing the act is pretty much saying that they aren't crazy and are capable of rational thought. They're nuts, out of touch, lack reasoning......whatever. That's why they do this stuff.

So the staff members would have guns, then what? How does that change this situation when a guy goes into the classroom? If he shoots the adult in the room first the gun is either on the floor or in the desk and there we are back to step one of being unarmed. Not to mention, where are teachers going to store these guns so they are both 100% inaccessible to students AT ALL TIMES yet also readily accessible to the teachers in a split second AT ALL TIMES? Are teachers going to be given holsters to pack around in elementary schools?

2. Arming staff assumes that the nut won't simply up the ante. Provided they even care that people are armed........most kill themselves, or at the very least prepare to be harmed themselves. You don't wear vests and military masks if you aren't expecting someone to return fire. The possibility of being shot is there as it is and it doesn't really deter one bit. Instead, they simply armor up so they can do the most damage possible before getting taken down.

Or maybe instead of guns they move onto other things like a truck with 50 gallon barrels of gasoline in the back. Drive one of those into the cafeteria at lunch? Guns aren't stopping that. Or hell, what if it doesn't even have gas and the just drives through the schoolyard at recess and runs over a bunch of kids?

These people don't care if there are guns around. They're hellbent on killing people. Pinning your hopes on guns being a deterrent is misguided because there are nuts out there who just do not care.

But lets pretend for a minute that it would deter people.

Since 1980 there have been 137 school shootings. Most have few losses of life. The three biggest have been Columbine, Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech.

Those 3 have accounted for 72 of the 297 deaths that have occurred in those shootings.

Scaling it back to the beginning of the year that Columbine happened as it was basically the first time we saw true evil and intent, it looks as though there have been 69 school shootings. It's kind of hard to count them up on that timeline. Also looks like 184 deaths.

3 of 69 shootings accounting for 72 of 184 deaths. These are the ones where the nuts don't care. So even if we take just these 3 and credit teaches who carry guns with being able to prevent the other 66, there are still 72 deaths. If teachers carrying guns can effectively reduce 95% of all shootings but the net effect is a 60% reduction in death, is that good enough? I don't think so.

I haven't looked it up either but I would bet a number of the incidents are simply some kid taking a gun to school because he thinks he's a hard *** and after things escalate to a certain extent, he shoots someone. Or maybe he went with the intent of shooting a specific kid and that was it. Those types of things happen before anyone even knows they happen. Teachers having guns may or may not stop those. What they might result in is the shooter getting shot, which would be the best case scenario compared to teachers opening fire and accidentally hitting other students.

Teachers carrying isn't the answer because there are people who don't care. They'll either go in anyway or step their game up. It's gonna take a number of different approaches. Like all things, there is no single answer. Since when has a problem like this ever been solved by the simple answer of arming teachers?

The real tragedies are premeditated and planned. The attackers have the element of surprise. They have the upper hand in every possible way, especially if they are bringing in multiple weapons and can put out more rounds than a teacher could.

And another question, what is the course of action for a teacher? They hear gunfire and leave the room, telling the kids to lock the door behind them? Now you have a room full of kids, no teacher present to direct them and no guarantee of stopping the shooter? How do you coordinate an evacuation of that classroom without an adult present? Class full of 5 and 6 six year old kids, nobody there to direct them and basically no way of communicating efficiently with them to provide directions?

Hoof...good points as usual. That is why I enjoy discussing things with you.

Couple of things. Guns are not going away. Crazy people are crazy and there is no way to prepare for every eventuality. In 1927 a disgruntled school treasurer blew up a school killing 34.

My points would address what happened in this case. A mental patient stood outside the locked door and shot his way in through the glass. If it was hardened it would have taken considerably longer. Long enough that an armed armed individual could put the miserable little rat **** down before killing 26 people.

If an armed crazy person broke into your kids school, you would prefer

A. allow the crazy person to kill as many as they feel like or

B. take him down

Gun free zones are not the answer. They are an invitation for lunatics. That has been proven over and over. A little sign or a piece of paper signed by the governor will not deter crazy mofo's

I do not think we are that far apart on this issue. There is a middle ground that can be reached without destroying the Second Amendment and keeps our kids relatively safe.